John Richardson

[GBinOz]

I don’t have access to that Trevor.

Hi Herlock,

There's a summary of the interview here:
https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...rs-richardson/

Cheers, George

[Ms Diddles]

Reading the posts would be useful to you.

I provided a response to the content in those posts.

Sherlock Holmes provided no response to the content, hence argument ad hominem.

Now that you're here perhaps you'd like to provide a response to the content of the post, given that Sherlock Holmes has decided to swerve it.

Richardson claimed to have been there 4.45 to 4.50.

Richardson said it was getting light and he could see all over the yard.

Dawn was 4.51; sunrise was 5.25.

He wouldn't have been able to see all over the yard at the time he claimed to be there.

Dawn: the first appearance of light in the sky.

Hi FM!

The arrival of dawn is not like someone has flicked a switch though.

It is a gradual process.

See attached astronomical definitions;

Dawn – Definition and Meaning (timeanddate.com)

Civil dawn is what we would consider to be typical "dawn" however prior to that there is "nautical dawn" when sea and sky would be distinguishable.

I'd personally consider that a body in the yard right in front of him would be visible during the transition from nautical dawn to civil dawn.

[Trevor Marriott]

Come off it Trevor. We get more and more desperate. Why are you so quick to dismiss Long’s ID but you’re happy to go with a women who said:

“ I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face”

But that doesent mean that she did not look at her face, otherwise how would she have described her and she refers to her as "Dark Woman" and Annie was known as "Dark Annie"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

There's a summary of the interview here:
https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...rs-richardson/

Cheers, George

Hello George,

Thanks for that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But that doesent mean that she did not look at her face, otherwise how would she have described her and she refers to her as "Dark Woman" and Annie was known as "Dark Annie"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No but it does mean that she could barely bring herself to look at her face….so not a lengthy look.

Mrs. Richardson said: “When I saw the murdered body I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face…”

Mr. Long however looked directly and clearly at the woman’s face. Both women appeared confident that they could identify Chapman yet you say that Longs identification was ‘unsafe’ but somehow Mrs. Richardson’s wasn’t. Tell me how that’s not being selective?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi FM!

The arrival of dawn is not like someone has flicked a switch though.

It is a gradual process.

See attached astronomical definitions;

Dawn – Definition and Meaning (timeanddate.com)

Civil dawn is what we would consider to be typical "dawn" however prior to that there is "nautical dawn" when sea and sky would be distinguishable.

I'd personally consider that a body in the yard right in front of him would be visible during the transition from nautical dawn to civil dawn.

Good point Ms D. And John Richardson said that it was ‘getting light.’ Yet again we have to assume that Richardson was lying, and for no reason

[Abby Normal]

Good point Ms D. And John Richardson said that it was ‘getting light.’ Yet again we have to assume that Richardson was lying, and for no reason

exactly right Herlock and Diddles
it starts to get light well before the sun rises, at least an hour. and besides its a moot point anyway because its only ever pitch black in a cave or sealed room. there is always ambient light from, moon, stars, nearby lamps/lights especially in the city. Richardson could have seen the body or the yard probably at any time.
It truly is amazing the desperate lengths some will go to try and argue an incorrect and losing position.

[Ms Diddles]

Good point Ms D. And John Richardson said that it was ‘getting light.’ Yet again we have to assume that Richardson was lying, and for no reason

Hi Herlock,

I know this is covering well-trodden ground, but I simply don't see what incentive there is for Richardson to lie about this.

Why would it have been so much more incriminating to simply say "I'm not sure whether the body was there, as I didn't really look / it was too dark" were that the truth?

Also, if I was going to lie about it, the last thing I would do is construct a fabrication that put's a knife in my hand in such proximity to a murder that was committed with one!

That's potential suicide.

Unless of course as someone mentioned, Richardson did it and had considered that someone may have seen him in the back yard with a knife in his hand.

I fully acknowledge that there are other possibilities, but playing the odds, I'm in the "he's telling the truth" camp on this one.

[Ms Diddles]

exactly right Herlock and Diddles
it starts to get light well before the sun rises, at least an hour. and besides its a moot point anyway because its only ever pitch black in a cave or sealed room. there is always ambient light from, moon, stars, nearby lamps/lights especially in the city. Richardson could have seen the body or the yard probably at any time.
It truly is amazing the desperate lengths some will go to try and argue an incorrect and losing position.

Yeah, Abby!

As a modern day city-dweller I'm sure that London in 1888 would seem unfathomably dark, but I still reckon there would be enough ambient light at that hour to make out the back yard at such a close proximity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I know this is covering well-trodden ground, but I simply don't see what incentive there is for Richardson to lie about this.

Why would it have been so much more incriminating to simply say "I'm not sure whether the body was there, as I didn't really look / it was too dark" were that the truth?

Also, if I was going to lie about it, the last thing I would do is construct a fabrication that put's a knife in my hand in such proximity to a murder that was committed with one!

That's potential suicide.

Unless of course as someone mentioned, Richardson did it and had considered that someone may have seen him in the back yard with a knife in his hand.

I fully acknowledge that there are other possibilities, but playing the odds, I'm in the "he's telling the truth" camp on this one.

Absolutely Ms D. A lie just makes no sense. In fact it unnecessarily draws the police’s attention to him. It really isn’t a close run thing. When you look at the evidence as a whole, and don’t try every trick in the book to discredit witnesses, then it’s fairly clear that Annie Chapman was killed at around 5.20/5.25. If you put this case in front of a Jury I’d say that it would take them all of 5 minutes to come up with a verdict for a later TOD.

[Trevor Marriott]

No but it does mean that she could barely bring herself to look at her face….so not a lengthy look.

Mrs. Richardson said: “When I saw the murdered body I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face…”

Mr. Long however looked directly and clearly at the woman’s face. Both women appeared confident that they could identify Chapman yet you say that Longs identification was ‘unsafe’ but somehow Mrs. Richardson’s wasn’t. Tell me how that’s not being selective?

Mrs Richardson had a lot of previous contact with Chapman she could tell from what she saw who she was identifying there could be no misidentfication because she saw the body in the yard not in the mortuary.

Another pointless argument you have created when there is no argument to be created. This is the second time today i have had to stop you in your tracks just as you are about to go off one.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

,

[Dickere]

Yeah, Abby!

As a modern day city-dweller I'm sure that London in 1888 would seem unfathomably dark, but I still reckon there would be enough ambient light at that hour to make out the back yard at such a close proximity.

This thread is like two guys fighting over a comb. They'll be bald soon but carry on guys.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mrs Richardson had a lot of previous contact with Chapman she could tell from what she saw who she was identifying there could be no misidentfication because she saw the body in the yard not in the mortuary.

Another pointless argument you have created when there is no argument to be created. This is the second time today i have had to stop you in your tracks just as you are about to go off one.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

,

You’ve had to stop me in my tracks? Unbelievable.

You are biased beyond belief Trevor. A woman looks at a horribly mutilated corpse; so bad that she could barely bring herself to look at her face. From this general glance, mainly clothing etc, we get a definite, can’t be questioned ID. Absolutely rubbish. Did they ask all the neighbours and see if anyone could have put a name to this woman so that they could try and locate her? Or are you just making a massive assumption that this door-to-door saleswoman existed in the first place.

And of course, Mrs Long could have lied for her so-called ‘15 minutes or fame’ but Mrs Richardson couldn’t have of course. Because you know that she was entirely honest.

And even if she was right, it means nothing. Except that Chapman knew that number 29 existed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This thread is like two guys fighting over a comb. They'll be bald soon but carry on guys.

There should be no fight. I’m right and Trevor is wrong. There are no ‘might have beens’ or ‘maybes’ about it. Nonsense needs weeding out and I have the ‘hoe of reason.’

[Abby Normal]

This thread is like two guys fighting over a comb. They'll be bald soon but carry on guys.

nah ones already bald